Sex differences in adverse events from systemic treatments for psoriasis: A decade of insights from the Swiss Psoriasis Registry (SDNTT).

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a disease that often requires prolonged systemic treatment. It is important to determine the safety of available therapies. There is currently little insight into sex-specific differences in the safety of systemic psoriasis therapies. OBJECTIVES: To examine the real-world, long-term safety of systemic psoriasis therapies with sex stratification in drug-related adverse events (ADRs). METHODS: Ten-year data from adults with moderate-to-severe psoriasis requiring systemic treatment (conventional systemic therapies [CST], biologics) were obtained from the Swiss psoriasis registry (SDNTT). ADRs were categorized according to the international terminology Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). Safety was assessed by calculating event rates per 100 patient-years (PY). We used descriptive statistics for patient and disease characteristics, and binomial and t-tests to compare treatment groups and sex. RESULTS: In total, 791 patients (290 females) were included with a mean age of 46 years. 358 (45%) received CSTs and 433 (55%) biologics; both groups had similar baseline characteristics except for more joint involvement in patients using biologics (26.86% vs. 14.8%, p < 0.0001). CSTs were associated with a 2.2-fold higher ADR rate (40.43/100 PY vs. 18.22/100 PY, p < 0.0001) and an 8.0-fold higher drug-related discontinuation rate than biologics (0.16/PY vs. 0.02/PY, p < 0.0001). Trends showed non-significant higher serious adverse event rates per 100 PY for biologics (8.19, CI 6.87-9.68) compared to CSTs (7.08, CI 5.39-9.13) (p = 0.3922). Sex stratification revealed a significantly higher overall ADR rate for all treatments in females (1.8-fold for CSTs [57.30/100 PY vs. 31.69/100 PY] and 2.0-fold for biologics [27.36/100 PY vs. 13.9/100 PY], p < 0.0001), and drug-related discontinuation rates for most CSTs in females. CONCLUSION: Females were associated with a significantly higher rate of ADRs and drug-related discontinuation rates. Sex stratification should be taken into consideration when designing studies in the patient-tailored management of psoriasis.

Are all ventilators for NIV performing the same? A bench analysis.

Global pandemic due to COVID-19 has increased the interest for ventilators´ use worldwide. New devices have been developed and older ones have undergone a renewed interest, but we lack robust evidence about performance of each ventilator to match appropriate device to a given patient and care environment. The aim of this bench study was to investigate the performance of six devices for noninvasive ventilation, and to compare them in terms of volume delivered, trigger response, pressurization capacity and synchronization in volume assisted controlled and pressure support ventilation. All ventilators were tested under thirty-six experimental conditions by using the lung model ASL5000® (IngMar Medical, Pittsburgh, PA). Two leak levels, two muscle inspiratory efforts and three mechanical patterns were combined for simulation. Trigger function was assessed by measurement of trigger-delay time. Pressurization capacity was evaluated as area under the pressure-time curve over the first 500 ms after inspiratory effort onset. Synchronization was evaluated by the asynchrony index and by incidence and type of asynchronies in each condition. All ventilators showed a good performance, even if pressurization capacity was worse than expected. Leak level did not affect their function. Differences were found during low muscle effort and obstructive pattern. In general, Philips Trilogy Evo/EV300 and Hamilton C3 showed the best results. NIV devices successfully compensate air leaks but still underperform with low muscle effort and obstructive lungs. Clinicians´ must have a clear understanding of the goals of NIV both for devices´ choice and set main parameters to achieve therapy success.